[hrtabf]

Yes, the CPUs listed are in the range where customers cannot perform expensive experiments (buying both Intel and AMD to test) and rely on review sites.

Personally, when I first got access to an Epyc, I was underwhelmed by the performance. For numerical performance it was slightly worse than M2 or cheap old Intel processors. I'm now a bit skeptical of reviews.

[grues-dinner]

I listened to a review that said an i7 Thinkpad was cool and quiet with an 8-10 hour battery life. Fans scream at the slightest load, it's 45 degrees constantly and the battery life is 3 hours if you don't touch it and 1 hour if you do. And digging deeper, that's just normal for them. Serves me right for trusting a "real" reviewer.

Should have insisted on a Framework, by the sounds of it, it would actually have at least not worse battery life.

[echoangle]

Can you say which Epyc processor? And in what benchmark it was worse than which old intel processor?

[ultrnal]

I think that the current thread sentiment (downvoting and accusations of lying elsewhere), does not make it appealing to provide further details.

[wordofx]

^ things that never happened.

[bayindirh]

I'd rather talk in SPEC scores if we're talking about Epyc and Xeon processors, and in TOP500 lists and national supercomputing centers, but you do you.

[ywvcbk]

> and in TOP500 lists and national supercomputing centers

Why would that be particularly relevant when comparing the performance of specific individual chips?